Fundamentalism, Culture and Lost Opportunity
I woke up this morning thinking, “Not enough people are mad at me.” Hence, this post.
Actually, my sincere hope is to encourage, not more rage but more reflection on all sides of the fundamentalism-and-culture issue. I’m going to argue that the two perspectives that are most passionate and opposite on this question are both wasting an important opportunity. First, some framing.
Fundamentalism and cultural conservatism
The central question is basically this: how should Christians evaluate heavily culture-entwined matters such as music styles (chiefly in worship), entertainment, clothing, etc.? To nuance the question a little more: how should churches, ministries, and individuals connected with fundamentalism and its heritage view these cultural issues?
Two nearly-opposite sets of answers to this question have become prominent among leaders and ministries of fundamentalist lineage. My guess is that most people are really somewhere between these two attitudes, mixing points from each. But the two near-opposite views seem to have the most passionate and articulate advocates.
At one end of the question, we have the Kevin Bauder, Scott Aniol, David DeBruyn, et. al. axis. At the other end, representatives are more scattered (and more numerous), but recent high-visibility proponents include Matt Olson of Northland International University and pastor Bob Bixby.
At the risk of catastrophic failure in the first 300 words, I’ll attempt to fairly summarize the differences in these two perspectives at least well enough to talk about them clearly. Because we’ve already got more than enough overstatement in the mix(!), I’ll consciously aim to err on the side of understatement.
Cultural conservatism
Let’s call the Bauder-Aniol point of view “cultural conservatism,” and simplify it as the idea that everything cultural is full of meaning and that the meaning is heavily influenced by where we are in history as a society—both in the history of ideas and in the history of cultural changes associated with those ideas. In short, nothing cultural is neutral, everything must be scrutinized for fitness for use by Christians, and that scrutnity should be biased in favor of the not-recent past. To say it another way, we ought to look at cultural change with a regard for the past that increases (to a point) as we look further back. I think I can fairly say that this view sees changes in culture in the West as being mostly negative since the middle ages.
The cultural conservatives are often about as unimpressed with 19th century “Second Great Awakening” music as they are with most of today’s “CCM.” It’s a lonely place to be, because it means most of what’s being created now is junk and much of what we (and our grandparents) grew up singing in church is junk, too.
Full disclosure: I’m mostly in the Bauder-Aniol-DeBruyn bailiwick. Though I would often argue the case differently (sometimes very differently), I consider myself a cultural conservative.
Cultural anti-conservatism
The perspective I’ve identified here with Olson and Bixby has many, many representatives. And I’m sure that “anti-conservatism” is not what they would choose to call their point of view. I apologize for that. It’s my intention to represent this perspective fairly and accurately—I just don’t yet have a better handle to attach to it.
This view rejects the idea that there is a superior cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West. It associates the cultural reactions of 20th century fundamentalism with legalism and tends to see the “standards” and “rules” of that era (and the surviving present forms) as often arbitrary and ill-conceived, at best, and as a ruse for unethical exercise of power and oppression by fundamentalist leaders, at worst.
In this view, the meaning of musical styles (and clothing styles, forms of entertainment, etc.) either never amounts to much to begin with or very quickly fades into irrelevance. Since the Christian faith and the church cross millennia and know no ethnic boundaries, the range of acceptable cultural forms for Christian worship is very broad and continually changing. Further—and this is an important point—the time has come to put many (most?) of the cultural stands of movement fundamentalism in the rear view mirror (post haste!).
Why the debate is going nowhere
Just looking at the ideas at stake, it should be pretty clear why the culture debate is not a trivial one. If everything cultural is packed with meaning—and not necessarily meaning we are conscious of—and if that meaning matters to God, we have much sober thinking to do about every bit of the culture we accept and use.
If, on the other hand, cultural meaning dissipates quickly into irrelevance (or doesn’t exist in the first place) and if tradition-favoring fundamentalists merely use these matters to impose their personal preferences on people, it’s possible that the “rules” not only dishonor the God we claim but that these traditions also cripple the joyful, heartfelt and free expressions of worship God wants from His people.
These are not abstract questions that should only interest academics or “overly contentious people.”
And that means all who love the Bible and want to live for the glory of God in these chaotic times are facing in important opportunity. More in line with the scope of this essay, we who are of fundamentalist heritage have an important opportunity.
But as far as I can tell, both sides are mostly botching it. There is almost no real engagement.
On one hand, Olson (and many others—let’s be fair) is saying rules and do’s and dont’s have no relationship to spirituality or sanctification and that to believe they do is legalism. And Bixby (and, again, he’s hardly alone) is saying that the cultural conservatives are basically arrogant, condescending snobs who are heaping guilt and shame on the “the average fundamentalist,” who, by the way, is a mindless, conforming robot.
On the other hand, the case for cultural conservatism has often included a “You’re too ignorant to understand; take my word for it” subtext. Though I can’t supply examples, I’m pretty sure I haven’t imagined that (I say this as one who is very sympathetic with their position). Proponents of cultural conservativism have also shown a tendency to be brittle in response to passionate opposition.
So in different ways (by insult or by non-engagement), both sides have shown a tendency to preach only to their own choirs (or praise bands, as the case may be).
The passion is good
Let’s be clear, though: these matters are too important to consider in a completely passionless way. We’re not debating infra- vs. super-lapsarianism. (Okay, that debate’s been pretty passionate too—aren’t they all?!) So I’m not faulting either side for getting hot and bothered at times. There would be something really twisted about examining these ideas with yawns and drooping eyelids.
But that means both sides of the question should expect that the other will, at times, commit the errors that always attend passionate disagreement. We humans just can’t be worked up as we should without also being worked up in ways we shouldn’t and lapsing into overstatement, bile-dumping, walking off in a huff, etc. It isn’t good, but it is normal. Rather than judge one another by unrealistic standards, we should quickly recognize how prone we all are to “gettin’ ugly,” and open the forbearance valve wide and hard.
At the same time, realizing how sensitive and close-to-heart these matters are (and how much historical baggage is attached), we should accept the need for extraordinary self-restraint (vs. extraordinary effort to restrain the other guy—i.e., shut him up). The debate calls for understanding and persuasion, not reaction and coercion.
For my part, I’m fully prepared to grant that just about everybody on both sides (and the points between) of the “cultural fundamentalism” question is keenly interested in doing what honors God and best serves His people.
The opportunity
So what is this opportunity we’re wasting? For the sake of brevity, perhaps it’s best to put it in terms of what could happen if enough believers put their minds and hearts to it.
I already hear snickers at my naïve idealism. But this isn’t really “idealism.” Idealism confuses what ought to be with what really is. Pursuing what truly could eventually be is something else.
What could eventually be—an articulate group of leaders on each side of the question could:
- separate the debate from the meta-debate
- identify the real the points of agreement and disagreement
- have the real debate
These points require more expansion than this post permits. A few clarifying observations, though: on both sides of the culture question (and several of the positions between), argument has occurred in a manner that obscures rather than clarifies the real points of disagreement. They have poured all sorts of meta-debate into the mix, making what’s really at issue nearly impossible to identify or engage.
It’s tragic. These matters are so important. It’s also tragic because a healthy debate exposes and highlights real differences so that those trying to make a wise, godly decision are better informed. We need a healthy debate about culture and meaning.
I hope to give more attention to meta-debate and points of agreement in a future post.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 170 views
Appreciate all the comments. Not quite “the usual” on this topic, though of course the long-standing commitments are evident. It’s also evident that some of you have done more reading and thinking on this than I have.
Steve asked about the charges cultural conservatives make about CCM and older sentimental music: “I wonder, how do they know this?”
It’s a great question, but it’s one they actually love to answer—at least in my experience. They’ve written quite a bit in attempts to answer it. Do you mean “How do they think they know this?” or “They think they know this but I don’t find their arguments persuasive”? If it’s the former, the information is out there. If it’s the latter, that’s where the debate needs to happen… at least that’s where I think some of the most interesting and edifying debate would happen.
It’s clear enough to me that many of the cultural non-conservatives feel that the culture question is settled and moot. I’d be interested in knowing more precisely what they see as settled. In the essay I paired two possibilities together when describing this view: that culture (a) never has much meaning to begin with or (b) that it’s meaning quickly dissipates into irrelevance. For those of you who see it as fairly obvious and settled that the culture matter is pretty much a non-factor, do you see the situation as a. or b.? The answer to that is pretty important because granting that culture ever has meaning that matters has many implications worth talking about.
Anne suggested I may have misrepresented Olson’s view on the relationship of rules to spirituality and sanctification. That’s possible. However, there is more in the two posts I linked to than the part you excerpted there, Anne. What I have to concede I have found his view—and very similar views that may or may not be the same—confusing. It seems self-contradictory on several points. So that makes it hard to fairly represent. What does a view really consist of if it grants a vital role to applying Scripture to matters the Bible doesn’t speak directly of and living a life of discipline in those applications, then turns around and says rules cannot contribute to sanctification? These are mutually exclusive ideas as far as I can tell.
In some ways the sanctification debate (one that is really going on mostly outside fundamentalism I think, among various flavors of Reformed) is a separate one, but it’s definitely related to the culture debate because so many argue against conservatism based on this particular view of sanctification, personal-discipline, “performance,” legalism, etc.
So one direction a healthy debate would need to go is to try to arrive at clarity on just what this view really is.
About the condescension and ignorance thing….
This is a subtopic I hope to develop more in my next essay, but I’ll sort of summarize for now. I think the case can be made that when cultural conservative leaders get the feeling they are talking to folks who are vastly ignorant on the subject, they are absolutely right about that. I’m including myself. I’ve barely even begun to get educated on that subject. I’ve learned just enough to have an idea how much I don’t know.
So my gripe with cultural conservatives is not that they think they know so much. The challenge is to reach out to us ignorant folk in a way that is not alienating. It’s a perceptions-management thing.
But both “sides” (and all the positions in between) have plenty of vocal defenders who are poorly informed. Much as we’d like to think otherwise, nobody’s got a corner on the stupidity market.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Pastor Bixby your last big SI post contradicts what you are saying here.
Aaron,
My complaint about Bauder/Aniol being condescending and arrogant is not because I think they are wrong, but because I think in most things they are right. I agree with you that they are, in the main, talking to people who know nothing about the subject. But I disagree with them that anyone who disagree with them knows nothing about the subject. Unlike how you represent me here, I actually agree more with them on culture than Olson (as you represented his view), but I strongly disagree with how their view is fleshed out and communicated through separation, isolationism, condescending non-cooperation, etc.
My paradigm to helping change culture toward an appreciation of higher cultural ideals (i.e. Bach) has been to speak the language of the “tribe” where I am a missionary. Because I can become all things to all people, it did not bother me to allow drums into our services because I do not feel my conscience violated by using something less good or “offered to idols” in helping people communicate. The irony is that I believe I am winning more believers in good culture (like old hymns and classical music) in my local church by rejecting a legalistic adherence to a higher standard. The churches that I have observed that take their approach to separation over music “teach” a higher ideal by legalism and I have seen it up close and personal, it kills. Bottom line, in ten years our local church will have done more to turn people toward a “higher culture” from “low culture” than I think many of their churches will do. While one of their churches that I know of is shrinking so fast as frustrated people leave because they feel like foreigners in their local church we are making disciples/followers by being willing to use not-as-good in our ministry of communication in order to draw people to Jesus. Ministry is not about communication to God as much as it is about communication to men.
I do not appreciate being lumped in the camp of any that think culture of any kind is amoral or that good/better/best are matters of subjective, personal tastes.
Susan the heart is what is important, but the question is can someone do the wrong thing with the right motives and the right heart. Can they “have a zeal for God but without knowledge?”
[Bob Bixby] I don’t mind being misrepresented if it helps make your point. But the fact of the matter is this line doesn’t represent my view of culture one iota:“This view rejects the idea that there is a superior cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West. It associates the cultural reactions of 20th century fundamentalism with legalism and tends to see the “standards” and “rules” of that era (and the surviving present forms) as often arbitrary and ill-conceived, at best, and as a ruse for unethical exercise of power and oppression by fundamentalist leaders, at worst.”
This is an interesting spin job and may represent some or many, but it doesn’t represent my view of these matters. I actually think our worship is more traditional than most of so-called conservative critics who assess my view to be as you described it above.
But carry on. I don’t care.
I have no desire to make points by misrepresenting. An argument against a misrepresented view is always a fail. I’d welcome a three or four sentence paragraph that summarize your view of culture, etc. in a more accurate way.
I’d be quite surprised to hear that you believe any of the following …
- that there is a cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West
- that fundamentalism was on track in its reactions to culture in the 20th century
- that legalism was not/is not a problem in connection with these cultural reactions
- that fundamentalist leaders have used their standards to wield power over people
Edit: Bob, just saw your second post. It appears I did have the wrong impression of your view. The vehemence of your post… is hard to understand if your differences with them are indeed so small. In any case, the view I described is out there and quite widespread… so maybe I just didn’t correctly identify a recent proponent.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
My differences with them on culture are small (in my opinion). My differences with them on the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ and the ambassadorial ministry of reconciliation are quite significant. My differences with them on catering to traditionalists as if their complaints with NIU are one and the same when it comes to conservative music are huge. I think it’s dishonest and I said so numbers of time. To allow people to get on their blog and to *think that the conservativism NIU once taught is the same as the conservativism that RAM teaches is dishonest. Garlock and Bauder are two different people. Completely. Furthermore, I think that a right view of culture is only going to come when people are unshackled from the culture of fundamentalist legalism. Their linking arms with traditional IFB to go after NIU as if they all were on the same page about conservative worship was misleading at best and it was a cheap way to get new fans. I don’t expect the traditionalists to get it, but I did expect much, much more from RAM. It was picking on an easy target. I think Aniol needs to explain why he doesn’t post deliberate attacks against his own institution where he teaches. But, of course, they pay him. And Harding needs to explain why he has no problem working with Aniol who is a member and elder in the SBC that is rife with, not only doctrinal variety but musical variety. Where does second degree separation apply? Or, does it not apply when it is one of your boys?
I don’t buy their idea of separation and I don’t have a problem with Aniol being in the SBC. But I think he should start posting anonymous letters about the SBC and his school too.
- that there is a cultural ideal at some point in the history of the West
A qualified yes. I think it’s foolish to point back to an era with romanticized memory. Perhaps because I lived in Europe for so long and walked by reminders of how pathetic culture was in the era that was supposedly idea. But, having said that, I do think that in the past in various aspects of culture (art, music, literature, etc.) there are “ideals of better vs. today” that we can look back to.
- that fundamentalism was on track in its reactions to culture in the 20th century
Of course. Especially in the late 60s. I don’t mind that there would be a reaction to culture. Our goal is to be counter-cultural and I think it manifests itself practically. Maybe I don’t understand your question here. It seems obvious to me.
- that legalism was not/is not a problem in connection with these cultural reactions
Legalism is always a problem. You don’t change culture by culture. You change culture by grace. I think this is obvious in Titus, a culture that was defined as always liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons. We live our lives to adorn the grace of God which teaches people how to change their culture. But it is grace that teaches us to live differently too, not mere rules (although I don’t deny the necessity of rules). But too easily legalism becomes the answer. The solution to immodesty is not “don’t wear pants.”
- that fundamentalist leaders have used their standards to wield power over people
Of course, fundamentalist leaders have used their standards to wield power over people. Do you really deny this? I will gladly admit that not all fundamentalists have done/do this, but I will say it is part of the culture of fundamentalism to use standards as a way of corralling people by fear. The music discussion is no exception.
Aaron I agree with your comment that most sides are mostly botching it.
However, both in general and in the case of the current NIU controversy, in reading the comments here on SI and in other blogs you do not get that sense at all.
The comments By Far are not in favor of the traditionalist or fundamentalist position.
Except for Mr. Martuneac, that I have seen those raising valid questions about the other side or NIU’s new direction and the implementation of it are few. And yet compare that with the energy and word count of those pointing out the flaws of the traditionalists.
Why is that?
Bixby wants fair and balanced, right? Of course that is reasonable. It goes to being honest and credible. After all, who likes engaging someone who can’t or won’t see the beam in their own eye while pointing out the spec in someone else’s eye.
Not directing this at Bixby, but seems to me the people asking for fair and balanced from the opposition do not appear to be very willing to demonstrate it themselves about their own side.
Is that honest? Is that credible?
Just some fair and balanced questions.
Bob Bixby wrote:
Of course, fundamentalist leaders have used their standards to wield power over people. Do you really deny this? I will gladly admit that not all fundamentalists have done/do this, but I will say it is part of the culture of fundamentalism to use standards as a way of corralling people by fear. The music discussion is no exception.
You are over-reaching here. You cannot use the un-Biblical excesses of a few to impugn the motives and intent of thinking fundamentalists who desire to be true to Scripture. It would be just as inappropriate of me to accuse evangelicals of being wishy-washy, theologically illiterates by tying all evangelicals to Joel Osteen. There are plenty of fundamentalists, like me, who eschew legalism and rote adherence to external standards.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I agree 100% with TylerR.
It is an illustration of my argument above.
What is good for the goose …
[paynen]I disagree with your definition of legalism. Although he didn’t use the word “legalism,” Jesus defined what we typically refer to as legalism as “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Certainly this can be the case in a salvific sense, as with the Pharisees, but it can also be the case in a non-salvific sense. So it can apply to sanctification as well as salvation.The other issue is a misunderstanding of what legalism actually means. In order for one to be legalistic they must be requiring works for righteousness. The pharisees were legalistic because they demanded that one follow the law and temple traditions in order for someone to be viewed righteous by God. So by definition only a works based form of salvation can be considered legalistic. So legalism should not even be a part of the debate. The issue being dealt with are corporate convictions and stewardship of our churches. I think what may help laymen and others who want to understand what is going on, is to actually read the material of each view before jumping into what is going on in regards of the arguments. That means reading books that have been published, not just jumping straight onto SI and jumping into conversations like many do. (not saying that that is what you are doing, I believe your post was respectful and gave us a accurate representation of what is going on for many people, and I thank you for your contribution.)
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long][paynen]I disagree with your definition of legalism. Although he didn’t use the word “legalism,” Jesus defined what we typically refer to as legalism as “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Certainly this can be the case in a salvific sense, as with the Pharisees, but it can also be the case in a non-salvific sense. So it can apply to sanctification as well as salvation.The other issue is a misunderstanding of what legalism actually means. In order for one to be legalistic they must be requiring works for righteousness. The pharisees were legalistic because they demanded that one follow the law and temple traditions in order for someone to be viewed righteous by God. So by definition only a works based form of salvation can be considered legalistic. So legalism should not even be a part of the debate. The issue being dealt with are corporate convictions and stewardship of our churches. I think what may help laymen and others who want to understand what is going on, is to actually read the material of each view before jumping into what is going on in regards of the arguments. That means reading books that have been published, not just jumping straight onto SI and jumping into conversations like many do. (not saying that that is what you are doing, I believe your post was respectful and gave us a accurate representation of what is going on for many people, and I thank you for your contribution.)
This is the traditional theological definition of legalism “Legalism, in Christian theology, is a usually pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God’s grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.”
http://monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bad-Theology/Legalism/
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/legalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(theology)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legalism
Enough sources?
Thank you for the links, because on the first one you provided under “a definition of legalism” #3 is “attempting to be sanctified by one’s own works.” And on the third link you provided, #2. B. is “the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.”
So, as I said, it can apply to both salvation and sanctification.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Tyler
So you and brother Martin have responded to Bixby’s accusation that fundamentalists have often used Xtra Biblical standards (such as music) to pressure people towards a kind of conformity - and that such conformity is in part motivated or used by fear. You both have suggested that while there are a few who have done that, this does not characterize fundamentalism as a movement.
So, not trying to be disrespectful to either of you, I must admit that I’m convinced by my own observations that Bob is right. So I’m 45 in July. Bob is a few years younger. Our dad’s were best buds at BJ back in the 60’s. Bob and I were born at or near BJ, attended Southside Baptist Church in Greenville and our families were raised in the heart of the BJ - BBF - FBF - Hyles kind of ministries (those orbs were united in the late 60’s, 70’s - maybe even into the first year or two of the 80’s).
Bob and I were born and bread in the middle of what I call Type A fundamentalism. In addition to all of that Bob and I both came out of Type A fundamentalism to what I call a different mindset within historic fundamentalism in part because of the abuse of leadership Bob speaks of. I would say - that an improper leverage of authority by way of fear is indeed a common character trait in the DNA and Ethos and sub-culture of militant fundamentalism - and maybe especially “institutional fundamentalism” and/or “organizational fundamentalism.” It is one of the reasons why in my view, this wing of fundamentalism must be tamed by the Fruit of the Spirit or it must die.
So either in active ministry or ministry training Bob and I have almost 50 years of combined “fundamentalist obsrervation.” I could fill a book as to times I’ve seen fundamentalists abuse God’s people through using their authority as a whip. It’s ugly and it has been too common within the militant strain of fundamentalism. To say that it is only found with a few here and there is I fear …… not accurate.
BTW - and this is just a side - I’m starting to hear testimony from some who attend “elders - rule” churches that take a more Type C approach to ministry a similar kind of testimony of abuse of power and an unwillingness to be careful and charitable with it’s authority. I know of at least two churches not too far from our congregation where elders rule their congregations and use fear as a way to knocking those that are struggling with this or that “into line.” So this “issue” in fairness is not only found within fundamentalism - but indeed it is an ugly part of the movement.
One more point of clarity here - You men are forcing me to think hard about the many occasions I’ve seen this “fear-mungoring.” In all honesty - the majority of instances have been in the context of fundamentalist politics. That is when pastors or leaders are interacting and trying to use influence to get their way or impose their influence. So if brother “so-in-so” doesn’t toe the line, well we won’t invite him to speak at such and such fellowship or ABC Presby-bapti-methodist College. We won’t stop there, if you don’t don’t “toe the line,” we will tell everyone in our Green colored rag sheet that all of the best fundamentalist will separate from “George” because - well we all know George is really just a quasi John MacArthur type and that always leads to liberalism! Now it also appears in local churches when leaders directly or indirectly threaten other leaders if they don’t mindlessly “follow the general!” (Read Think modern day examples of “Diotrephes.”) This also shows up in para-church ministries like Missions agencies - who on some occasions can almost hold a gun to the head of American or National leaders if they don’t “toe the line.”
So - all that to say - this abuse of power is embedded in the “sub-culture” of Type A fundamentalism - too many of us have too many stories and too many observations as to how this is a systemic issue not an episodic one. Now when fundamentalist pastors don’t abuse their sheep and stay out of fundamentalist politics - and treat other fundamentalist ministries and leaders with equality, there isn’t this attitude. Instead there is a peaceful attitude. Where that is the norm - God’s grace abounds and then Bob’s comments may not apply.
So - just try to consider this a parallel witness to what Bob was saying earlier.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Joel:
So - all that to say - this abuse of power is embedded in the “sub-culture” of Type A fundamentalism - too many of us have too many stories and too many observations as to how this is a systemic issue not an episodic one
I agree with you on that one. My church is loosely affiliated with a few churches who are precisely like this, and who flirt with Landmark-ism and a Baptist Brider mentality. There is a deep sub-culture of what you term “Type A” dictatorial leadership. Dr Oats, from Maranatha, classifies them as “Imperial Fundamentalists” in his own taxonomy of the movement. The church I “grew up” in while stationed in Sicily moved in the “Type A” orbit; the Pastor was a Midwestern grad, but was paradoxically not dictatorial himself. I know where you’re coming from. I know where Bob Bixby is coming from. I have seen it. One church we loosely fellowship with carries Gail Riplinger’s KJV book!
I am only suggesting that such silliness is not characteristic of historic fundamentalism or Scripture itself. It is a shame some have gone to such extremes, but they do not and should not define the fundamentalist philosophy itself - Bixby errs by doing so.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion